The Trail of Tears

Do we Americans have the moral obligation to reverse the Indian Removal Act?

Should the tribes get their rightful land and resources back?

Also what caused our Manifest Destiny ideals where we considers ourselves the natives and rightful owers of the continent ?

This thinking that Whites are native to the land continues to this day

Do we Muslims have the moral obligation to reverse the European Shariah Act?

Should the Europeans get their rightful land and resources back?

Also what caused our Jihad via immigration ideals where we considers ourselves the natives and rightful owers of the continent ?

This thinking that Arabs are native to Europe continues to this day

>get their rightful land and resources back?

Most of those tribes stole that land and resources from someone else. Why are they more entitled to it than anyone else?

It is interesting to talk about, though it will be difficult when there's a subboard who already has its opinion ready and who usually doesn't really want to discuss it.
>Should the tribes get their rightful land and resources back?
I'll answer: I feel this would be extremely difficult. I can see how it is justified to make some re.... - can't think of the word - regardless of the actions of the Amerindians.

The usual argument against it is this
>Most of those tribes stole that land and resources from someone else.
But I don't think one wrong doing justifies another wrongdoing.

To be honest this is outside my scope, I am not a philosopher of ethics. I think they could lay out a much better argumentation as me.

>But I don't think one wrong doing justifies another wrongdoing.

No, but it means those tribes are hypocrites and shouldn't be surprised when they suffered through the same violent annexation they put other tribes through.

At this point both parties involved are long dead. To give back the land would negatively impact the lives of millions of people currently living there, over actions that they had no hand in.

Man is in a constant state of competition for resources. Societies are made of men, and run by men, so they have the same drive to pursue resources. Societies, therefore, compete for resources. When one society loses the competition, they lose their resources. How fucking difficult is this to understand? Do white people now have to apologize for human nature?

two wrongs dont make something right

so dont complain when china annexes us right?

So many people on this board have such double standards

>so dont complain when china annexes us right?

What kind of strawman argument is this? Are you an actual retard?

Not the same thing

>does x have a moral obligation to do x?

NO FUCK YOU

>To give back the land would negatively impact the lives of millions of people currently living there, over actions that they had no hand in.
Yes, I absolutely agree with that and it was what I was implying.
>but it means those tribes are hypocrites
It would certainly suit the Indians that they acknowledge that they were wrong too. I don't know if they do (that enough).

It is strange by the way seeing how the Indians have acquired some kind of common identity nowadays, they might still identify as their tribe but also as Indians together.

When indeed if you look at history, you could say that other tribes were almost as foreign as the European settlers. They fought with and against both.

But question to you: do you think the current situation is fine? I personally feel there is still some injustice. The Indian tribes were hardly 'at the right', but some of the injustice done to them was hardly justified either.

Again, I do think that the Indians should acknowledge their own wrong doings as well. Whenever I look at some of those Native activists they put most of the blame to the Europeans, and barely recognize their own bad history.

I suppose it differs from tribe to tribe, and that is again beyond my scope of knowledge. I've only read so much about it.

i thought multiculturalism is supposed to be good why should native Americans be given their own ethnostate

it's one thing to resist annexation, but to piss and moan over it post factum for hundreds of years and to demand from the victors that they make reparations for it is asinine
although if the victors allow you to do it and do their best to accommodate you, then go right ahead. We all use the weapons we have

>i thought multiculturalism is supposed to be good why should native Americans be given their own ethnostate
You make a valid point. Though I thought it was the USA that emphases the melting pot instead of multiculturalism.
Anyway it wouldn't make sense from the perspective of American culture to have an ethnostate.

China can't annex shit. The US would BTFO China because they'd fuck their entire infrastructure up in the day, utterly dominate land and sea warfare, and leave them in their shit hole to starve before getting all of NATO and probably the rest of the world to unite against China and fuck their shit up, assuming their people don't rise up in revolution before that happens. Literally nobody wants China as hegimon, I doubt even Russia would help them.

If natives get an ethnostate does this mean white people get an ethnostate too?

Fair is fair.

White people aready have a place. Its called Europe

White Americans are not even a real ethnicity. Its a bastardized European race with a drop of black and native american here and there

Neither are black americans

>White people aready have a place. Its called Europe

HAHAHAHAHA

>Do whites get an ethnostate?

Skin colour isn't a good reason to make a nation. Culture, however, is.

skin color and culture are joined at the hip

To be honest, it was a time where right of conquest was still justifiable, so no, I don't believe so. And that's even if you take the most "America was an aggressor" stance.

t. Native Cherokee, Eastern Band

yeah Americans always associate race with culture/personality

Yet Turks identify with turkic culture and language

Latin Americans identify with Spanish culture and language

wake the fuck up

The honest best thing we can do is to for US americans to respect native culture and adopt their idenitity as our own but Murics are too proud to do that shit

its sad

>we are literally muslims

good argument

If we finish them off we wont be obligated to give them anything.

>Do we Americans have the moral obligation to reverse the Indian Removal Act?

Nobody who was alive when it was passed is still alive. Nobody alive today has any moral obligation whatsoever relating to this act. Culpability is not transmitted from parents to children (except in the case of original sin), despite what blacks and Jews want you to think.

>talks about what jews want you to think
>makes an exception for original sin
wew
lad

I think lack of any real struggle in life makes people forget the brutality of the world. Do you really think anyone gave a shit? Do you have any idea how much bloodshed has happened in the 19th century alone?

Bottom line is shit sucks. We could have just genocided all of them and nobody would have batted an eye back then. The fact that today we walk on eggshells around them is just beyond me. If we were merciful or moral we could have them all killed at the snap of one's fingers

The anti-Semitic guy... is going against a concept that would benefit his position.

If I wasn't here to witness it, I would not believe it.

Either way you argue for, President Jackson stepped all over the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling by ordering the Cherokee Trail of Tears so basically
>his order was unconstitutional and illegal in every way
>therefore the Trail of Tears should be reversed or at least it should be acknowledged that it was illegal

>But Culpability is a state responcibility.

It was the government's descision and the goevernment has the responcibility.

The German government still pays Israel for the holocaust retard

>except in the case of original sin

>Do we Americans have the moral obligation to reverse the Indian Removal Act?
>Should the tribes get their rightful land and resources back?

yes, and soon before magic comes back and they take it by force.
goddamn NAN is going to rip America apart.

culpability =/= responsibility for the past =/= responsibility for the future
individual responsibility =/= collective responsibility

Reparations from a government would also generally not happen for a crime committed by previous governments because governments tend to be in denial mode for at least a good 50 years.
It took the Japanese 70 years just to acknowledge that they may have done something wrong in Korea. The Turkish government, 100 years later, still doesn't recognize the Armenian genocide.

>Do we Americans have the moral obligation to reverse the Indian Removal Act?
A fundamental tenet of justice is that one is responsible for their own actions. The people today did nothing to the people 200 years ago. Asking them to pay for the mistakes of dead men is every bit as unjust as the crimes committed by those dead men.

Its a double edged sword, they deserve compensation, but they are also better off being forced to assimilate.
maybe its different in America, but in Canada, reserves are unbelievable shitholes 95% of the time.

There are a lot of different conceptions of the self, though.
In less individualistic and more communal societies like Asia or Southern Europe, the self is also understood as being part of the community, e.g. the family. In this conception, responsibility and pride from one part of the extended self (e.g. your siblings) does transfer to another part of the extended self (you as a person).

Western European and Northern American countries (except Mexico) tend to follow the more individualistic approach, but they do affirm nation or state continuity and a continuity of responsibility of the state, where responsibility for an injustice 200 years ago committed by the state does transfer into the future, because it's still the same entity.

I don't see what you're trying to get at. The United States government has already offered recompense for the handful of tribes that have legitimate grievances with it.

I don't give a shit about specifically the USA. I was talking about collective responsibility in general.

America fought a territorial war for land. In life, it is not enough that we may succeed, others must fail. That is the way of existance for all of time.

>Western European and Northern American countries (except Mexico) tend to follow the more individualistic approach, but they do affirm nation or state continuity and a continuity of responsibility of the state, where responsibility for an injustice 200 years ago committed by the state does transfer into the future, because it's still the same entity.

Contrast this with what the op is suggesting should happen and then realize how fucking retarded you are and how irrelevant your over analyzing post is.

Oh. Well then you're a dumbass.

OP isn't asking for compensation. He's asking for a reversal. How is at any more just to do the same thing to another group of people?

You're literally just duplicating the very act you're trying to compensate for.

You're on Veeky Forums, where either the historical or the abstract level matters. If it was a concrete policy proposal, then it belongs to /pol/, hence this is not irrelevant, but the only legitimate topic in this thread.

No.

Yes.

How can you commit the same act and call it justice but call the first instance of it injustice? You're still removing people from their homes. In both cases neither did anything to the people that are replacing them and the people doing the replacing benefit from the absence of the people replaced.

The only thing that changes is chronological order.

I don't think they are the same act, just because they are the same on the objective level.

On the objective level, shooting someone to murder someone is the same as shooting someone in self-defense or shooting someone holding a hostage. In all three cases, I'm shooting someone, but the subjective level, especially the intent, is totally different, and an an act is defined both by the objective and the subjective level together.

>The intent
In both cases the intent is for one group to very blatantly prosper at the expense of another. The justification merely changes but in both cases the group paying the price has done little to the one benefiting.

>shooting someone to murder someone is the same as shooting someone in self-defense or shooting someone holding a hostage

Except both events equate to shooting someone to give their wallet to someone else.

Maybe they shouldn't have gone to war if they didn't want to get their asses kicked.

If you unjustifiedly took (i.e. stole) my wallet, you'd be prospering at my expense.
If I then wanted it back, would I merely want it back to prosper at your expense, or would I rather want circumstances (my possession) to be restored that I perceive to be just?

But I didn't take your wallet the government did and then they gave my ancestors some of the money in it.

I don't care about the money, I want that wallet. It's my family heirloom since a millennium.

The government unjustifiedly took that heirloom away from me, then gave it to your ancestors. I just want specifically that wallet back.
Getting it back would hurt you, because you also need a wallet, so you should be compensated by the one that did the injustice in the first place: The government of the United States of America of 1830. That government doesn't exist anymore and has been replaced by one that wouldn't approve of the taking-away of my wallet nowadays, but that current government still is the one that accepts and perceives itself to be in the role of the successor of those previous governments, one of which being the one of 1830. Because of that, it gets transferred rights like certain territories like the ones from the Louisianian Purchase, but from the same mechanism that transfers rights, it also gets duties, like having to accept responsibility for misconduct like taking away my family's wallet. So it has to take back that wallet, give it to me and compensate you with a new wallet or, if not possible, a monetary compensation. If that isn't possible, it has to otherwise compensate me, like with money.

So why does the government tolerate it's current relationship with Indians? I understand the casinos in Florida and Nevada, but in other reservations why doesn't the government just claim the land, and say that the Indians living there are now US citizens and subject to US laws? A lot of tribes are corrupt as fuck and squander the land given to the,

Well the Indians were outperforming the whites, so whites killed them until they could no longer be considered competitive.

I dunno op obviously their continued failures are all their own fault and we should point them out to our children and laugh and use them as examples of the dangers of not modernizi- I mean if modernizing near white people.

But its my wallet now and not only that i bought the wallet from a guy that bought it on ebay who bought it from a guy that bought it at a pawn shop.

Your argument is really dumb. No matter how you cut it you're asking me to pay for apmethibg I didn't do. Not only that you're asking millions of other people in the sane it similar circumstances to give up their second, third, fourth or even fifth hand wallets all in the name of paying for crimes they didn't commit.

>I can see how it is justified to make some re.... - can't think of the word
reparations

>except in the case of original sin
If you're a Christian you should know there are many other cases in the Bible where this happens, it's kind of a recurring theme.

The government is a collective u dumdum

>But its my wallet now
Is it really? Some might argue that you've only had it in possession, but never really owned it. Whom belongs Crimea right now?

The purely civil analogy falls apart pretty quickly, though, because of monetary compensation and statute of limitations -- but states don't think in such short terms. In the first place, I just brought it up to pull your intuitions on the difference between prospering at someone's expense and wanting justice.

>you're asking me to pay
You'd get compensated, too.

> for crimes they didn't commit.
Someone got shot by someone in the military the other day. The state compensated the victim's family. I didn't shoot him, why do I, through taxes, have to pay for it?

Kek

>brought it up to pull your intuitions
Jesus Christ kids are stupid. So you did this as a devils advocate sort of deal? You're just arguing for the hell of it? Listen, kid, (inb4) srsly go do something more productive with your time than arguing nonsense abstractions on moral positions you don't believe for fleeting rewards on an anonymous imageboard. You're wasting your life, even vidya is more productive.

What Europe is going through is laughable in comparison, this was actually a tragedy.

So..... U admit u lose the argument.

No this continent belongs to us whites and you will have to fight us to get it back native american shit.

Also stop calling them indians you retard.